FFVS J 22 how well does it stack up?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Seems like it would be a very good low altitude fighter. The Swedes liked it up to about 16,000 feet, after which the power was starting to fall off. Makes me wonder how this impressive little fighter might have done with an R-1860-76 or -86, both with 2-stage superchargers.

I won't go out on a limb and make claims, but with a 2-stage unit, it might have been a handfull for the better-known WWII fighters ... assuming the better-armed later models.

Wish they had skinned it with Aluminum so there would be a few around flying today, at least on the airshow circuits. I'd love to help restore one to flight status, but only if it flew occasioanlly. I've given up work on static displays. Too much effort for it not to fly.
 
Last edited:
In the last analyze not very well.
The design team was at first very satisfied with the result but then a couple J26s (P-51)s arrived where the test flights were flown, pilots of J26s looked on a while and then noticed that the proto was a nice little tight turning plane but not so much a fighter and then showed in practice how helpless the proto was against much faster better climbing fighter. Of course if a P-51 or 109G/K pilot made a cardinal error and was lured into a slow speed horizontal turning fight with a J22 he would have been in trouble but as long as he played with his plane's strong points a J22 pilot would have been in deep trouble.
 
Last edited:
We'll have to disagree, Juha.

I don't think it was a world beater, but it certainly was better than a lot of other planes out there with similar power. Other ones that come to mind with similar power is the A6M5, the F4F, some of the Reggiannes, a Bloch or two, the P-35, P-36, etc. In that crowd the J-22 is near the top at low altitudes. With a 2-stage it might have held its own a bit higher.

The Germans experimented with a radial on the Bf 109 airframe. I wonder how the performacne of that plane compared? I've seen the pics of the radial Bf 109, but have never seen a performance summary for it.

The solution to top WWII fighter performance was more power and higher ceilings but, with the installed power it had, the J-22 was pretty good when compared with similarly-powered opposition.
 
GregP said:
We'll have to disagree, Juha.

I don't think it was a world beater, but it certainly was better than a lot of other planes out there with similar power. Other ones that come to mind with similar power is the A6M5, the F4F, some of the Reggiannes, a Bloch or two, the P-35, P-36, etc. In that crowd the J-22 is near the top at low altitudes. With a 2-stage it might have held its own a bit higher.

The Germans experimented with a radial on the Bf 109 airframe. I wonder how the performacne of that plane compared? I've seen the pics of the radial Bf 109, but have never seen a performance summary for it.

The solution to top WWII fighter performance was more power and higher ceilings but, with the installed power it had, the J-22 was pretty good when compared with similarly-powered opposition.
Click to expand...

IIRC the Flygvapnet got its first J22s in Nov 43 and IMHO it didn't had much chance against Spit L.F. IX, Bf 109G-6, P-51B, Yak-9 or La-5FN. It was very good plane for its engine power but in late 43 early 44 all potential adversaries had much much more powerful engines.
 
Then, like with all slightly overmatched planes, it would come down to the pilots.

And if those planes you mention get fown to 10,000 feet, they still might get surprised.
 
Last edited:
if they fought the german and the LW tactics were like they were in the east...flown at much lower alts, then 10 - 15 k is right in the sweet spot for the j-22. not sure what alts the raf flew when raiding norway....but if they flew against the us bomber groups and the escorts at 25k+ feet they would be out of thier element. if they flew against the vvs with the fins..again lower alts and they probably would have had success. that is my quick take...w/o research to back it up.
 
GregP said:
Then, like with all slightly overmatched planes, it would come down to the pilots.

And if those planes you mention get fown to 10,000 feet, they still might get surprised.
Click to expand...

In aircombat unexpected might happen but as the J26 pilots showed that against an attack by a modern fighter of that time followed by a spiral zoom climb produced nearly impossible situation to J22 pilot, if he didn't follow the attacker the latter ended up above and behind the J22 and was ideally placed for a second bounce, if the J22 pilot followed the attacker, the latter could keep out from J22's sight by controlling his climb-rate and turn rate until the J22 pilot had to give up or the J22 stalled and again the attacker would have been in position for a perfect bounce. Especially Spit L.F. IX and 109 would have been excellent for that kind of fight and the Soviet planes were excellent low altitude fighters.
 
Sorry Juha, a spiral climb wasn't a foolproof maneuver in a fight. Any good maneuver works for a short while until the enemy learns how to counter it.

Looping with a Zero was suicide until they learned not to do that. It wasn't quite cut and dried, and the lower-performing aircraft won a surprising number of times. Ask a Wildcat pilot who shot down Zeros. Ask a Hurricane pilot who shot down Bf 109's. The list is almost endless. I bet the Finn Buffalo pilots weren't really aware that they'd lose any encounter, either.

I'll grant the Bf 109 should have had a pretty good edge in several areas over the J-22, but certainly not all. And Sweden didn't have to fight all the Allied and Axis aircraft in existence.
 
Last edited:
Yes but if the pilots flying higher-performing planes stayed in right tactics it was usually rather one-sided combat, look e.g. 7./JG 26 against Malta Hurricanes or even FiAF 3/LLv 24 Brewster B-239s against I-153 Tsaikas. Same to FiAF HLeLv 28 MS 406s vs P-39s from 773. IAP in 1944, MS 406 had extremely light controls and turned very tightly but lacked engine power and was clear underdog in those combats.
 
360 mph seems a very high speed on 1,065 hp even with a small wing and good aerodynamics. The very similar Ki43 with slightly more power only got 330 mph is it possible the 360 given in wiki is for an unarmed prototype.
 
It seems well documented. Unfortunately a web site with over a 1/2 dozen pages of very good information on the J 22 seems to have disappeared from the web (or Google fu is very weak).

The plane was lightly built however and very well streamlined. ( I believe the normal G loading was 6.5? with a 50% safety factor?) It had several more years of aerodynamic knowledge to help it over the Ki 43.

It may have better use of exhaust thrust although still far from ideal.
 
Shortround6 said:
It seems well documented. Unfortunately a web site with over a 1/2 dozen pages of very good information on the J 22 seems to have disappeared from the web (or Google fu is very weak).

The plane was lightly built however and very well streamlined. ( I believe the normal G loading was 6.5? with a 50% safety factor?) It had several more years of aerodynamic knowledge to help it over the Ki 43.

It may have better use of exhaust thrust although still far from ideal.
Click to expand...

Where does Sweden get the years more aerodynamic knowledge. Possibly Germany would be happy to help and supply data with an eye on the continuing supply of Iron Ore.
 
Hi Juha,

I agree. I really like the J-22, but against a well-flown antagonist in a late-war piston fightrer of 1,500+ HP using correct tactics and strategy, it should come out on the losing end a majority of the time. I don't believe they had to test that theory all that often.
 
Hello Greg
Yes, I also like J22, IMHO very good work, especially when taking in the account that it was not designed and built by the established SAAB but by men with limited experience with the modern fighter designs. IMHO it was better than the Finnish VL Myrsky. Have seen the one in Linköping at the Flygvapnet Museum.
 
Wonderful, I never knew of this lightweight ace plane until this topic, welldone, may their be more for us avid aero-afficandoes :)

...google fu, more like google ft/ftr (fcuk them/fcuk's their rivals).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

tomo pauk
BAR 2.0 - how light might it went?
Replies
14
Views
583
tomo pauk
tomo pauk
N
How does Ural bombers(Ju-89/Do-19) compared to stuff luke B-17 or Lancaster?
Replies
1
Views
853
GregP
GregP
N
How well did the Germans make use of occupied France aero industry?
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
pinehilljoe
pinehilljoe
M
If German have access to high ocatane fuel, how does that impact the performance of their fighters?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
Engineman
E
W
Mass produced HS-123s
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
7K
nuuumannn
nuuumannn
Back